Lets talk tuning, piggy back vs ECU flash.

[Terry@BMS]

Out of 500 + piggy backs sold... that is the fastest time you have? Nuff said

The fastest time I know on the Stinger forum list is the 11.99@120mph from our development car. Which is only 0.01th slower than your more heavily modified car with "superior tuning". But customer satisfaction is about a lot more than 100s of a second differences on a list.

 

[TorkMe]

Totally agree that today i may not run a 11.95 at the track. Although my first run of my last track day in october was at 39 degrees. But you still need to sit around and get heat soak.
But by the time the track opens ill have a tune update, dp, wheels and be running 11.7s.

Trust me, you will be running faster than 11.95 come opening track time and doing so with no methanol and no E30 blended fuels... but according to someone in this thread... those are not power adders, lol.

 

[TorkMe]

The fastest time I know on the Stinger forum list is the 11.99@120mph from our development car. Which is only 0.01th slower than your more heavily modified car with "superior tuning". But customer satisfaction is about a lot more than 100s of a second differences on a list.

Bwah, ha, ha, ha... how quickly we forget... E30 and methanol

 

[DaJackson]

The average JB4 customer doesn't know the damage that the JB4 is causing their car, and as more and more come forward with the blown turbos, broken spark plugs and eventually failed engines... then the market will be smarter, but at the cost of the consumers you managed to convince to run the JB4.

Where is the proof to back up this statement?

“It’s all over”, “go search” are not acceptable answers.

 

[Tonkabob]

Eh the bench racing gets tiring. I know a JB4 customer ran ~12.07@117mph last week (at a real track) on a sweet 1.90 60' time using front tires and rims from his GTR. High flow cats I believe. Hopefully we see him in the 11s next time he hits the track!

Awesome. Where is the slip and ill add him to the board.
Edit: forgot about crew dog. Rwd with all bolt ons plus wheels and DRs. More mods. Running the same old 12.13s without the wheels and tires so far. I was thinking of the AWD with full bolt ons running 12.13.
Still nothing has really changed. Still the 12.1 to 12.13 brick wall without wheels and tires.
Not trying to take away from crew dogs awesome run. Just countering Terrys "we are only .04 slower" when in reality, mod for mod jb4 and lap3 pro are .2 to .3 slower than the current ecu tune.
Torks August 11.98 run would be like a jb4 without fuel wires.

 

[Helo58]

I am a newbie so I will ask and take the heat for it... Methanol has about half of the energy content (btus) as gasoline. Ethanol is lower than gasoline, but not as low as methanol. If you are spraying water and methanol/ethanol that reduces the energy content further. I don't understand how water/meth or E30 are power "adders" then. They may make more efficient use of the existing energy in pure gasoline or E30, but to equal pure gasoline energy content you would have to use 20%-50% more of it. Without changing the operating parameters of the engine (e.g. timing), water/methanol would actually make you lose power, not gain it.

 

[TorkMe]

Where is the proof to back up this statement?

“It’s all over”, “go search” are not acceptable answers.

Its not my business to post the trash from Facebook or Instagram on this forum. We will let time and customer reviews be the answer to your proof.

 

[TorkMe]

I am a newbie so I will ask and take the heat for it... Methanol has about half of the energy content (btus) as gasoline. Ethanol is lower than gasoline, but not as low as methanol. If you are spraying water and methanol/ethanol that reduces the energy content further. I don't understand how water/meth or E30 are power "adders" then. They may make more efficient use of the existing energy in pure gasoline or E30, but to equal pure gasoline energy content you would have to use 20%-50% more of it. Without changing the operating parameters of the engine (e.g. timing), water/methanol would actually make you lose power, not gain it.

The methanol works as a cooling agent for the air, and as a knock preventative measure.

Here is a quote from a very popular engine building website:

"Methanol is a high octane fuel that is also extremely resistant to detonation. It has a tendency to absorb heat out of the air – something known as “latent heat of vaporization.” The water also absorbs heat and provides a further cooling effect as the finely atomized water/methanol mix is pumped into the engine."

If you are "tuning" for methanol, you can get more ignition advance added to the tune, thus increasing power output. The cooler charge, again... cooler air is more dense, thus... you get more air into the combustion chamber, equals more power.

Ethanol, is superior for knock control. Here is another quote from why you want to run ethanol:

"To reap the full power benefits of ethanol based fuels you'll need to increase fuel flow. Despite having a higher octane rating, E85 has a lower overall energy density than pure pump fuel. Pure gasoline contains approximately 125,000 BTUs per gallon, while E85 contains approximately 84,000. This means that a greater volume of E85 must be utilized to realize the same energy content. "

You will have to use more fuel with an E30 blend to reach the same BTU's at gasoline. That increase in fuel will cause more fuel consumption, but the performance benefits come from the ability to add more ignition timing, and the flame propagation of ethanol is a more stable burn cycle.

If you were to combine E30 (ethanol blended fuel) with a methanol injection system... you are getting the benefits of both systems in one tune. Thus... you are creating the perfect situation for optimizing the fuel, ignition, and knock protection from running said fueling solutions.

Essentially, you get to run more ignition advance, at a leaner air fuel ratio without any knock related problems inside the ECU. Add to that, you get a cool and more dense air charge due to the cooling effects of the methanol injection... and you have the perfect mix for making a ton of horsepower and torque.

Hope this helps

 

[Terry@BMS]

Ok, since this is the ECU vs piggy back tuning thread.

Can you post the ECU similarities, that being the map index's of both vehicles that share the same maps? Or have similar maps?

Between the BMW and the Stinger platforms? The Stinger is most similar to the N54 in terms of it's ECU logic paths from my experience.

1) Both are direct port injected
2) Both are speed density (no MAF sensors)
3) Both are load based targeting with the ECU targeting a load value rather than a boost target, during colder weather the boost target is lower, during warm weather boost target higher, to attempt to keep power consistent across all climate, for example.
4) Both run closed loop fuel control full time via factory wide band o2 sensors, with long and short term fuel trims set separately for each bank
5) Both run individual timing advance per cylinder with a long term octane adaption, and short term knock adaptions per cylinder. Both pull timing ~3.5 degrees per trigger and decay it back in over around 3 seconds if the cylinder has quieted down.
6) Both use the throttle to regulate boost.
7) There are some differences around how factory boost control works, but the per bank PID is similar. The Stinger boost control is actually more similar to the 2015+ BMW S55 M3/M4 platform.
8) Both systems model turbine speed and EGT using factory constants.

When working with the tuning on the JB4 end everything the ECU does is relatively predictable in its response. Which has made our job really easy. We're working with roughly the same ECU logic we've been working with since 2008. Now of course the actual tables and constants are going to be a little different. But there are only so many ways to skin a cat. I know it's your nature to try to make things seem as complicated as possible, maybe it's just your nature? But the logic paths on our end are quite predictable.

Regarding your nonsense that our customers are more at risk than yours, you've offered no evidence to back that up. Meanwhile we have hundreds of Stinger customers and tens of thousands of JB4 customers over the last decade that would contradict your inflammatory and baseless claim.

 

[TorkMe]

Between the BMW and the Stinger platforms? The Stinger is most similar to the N54 in terms of it's ECU logic paths from my experience.

1) Both are direct port injected
2) Both are speed density (no MAF sensors)
3) Both are load based targeting with the ECU targeting a load value rather than a boost target, during colder weather the boost target is lower, during warm weather boost target higher, to attempt to keep power consistent across all climate, for example.
4) Both run closed loop fuel control full time via factory wide band o2 sensors, with long and short term fuel trims set separately for each bank
5) Both run individual timing advance per cylinder with a long term octane adaption, and short term knock adaptions per cylinder. Both pull timing ~3.5 degrees per trigger and decay it back in over around 3 seconds if the cylinder has quieted down.
6) Both use the throttle to regulate boost.
7) There are some differences around how factory boost control works, but the per bank PID is similar. The Stinger boost control is actually more similar to the 2015+ BMW S55 M3/M4 platform.
8) Both systems model turbine speed and EGT using factory constants.

When working with the tuning on the JB4 end everything the ECU does is relatively predictable in its response. Which has made our job really easy. We're working with roughly the same ECU logic we've been working with since 2008. Now of course the actual tables and constants are going to be a little different. But there are only so many ways to skin a cat. I know it's your nature to try to make things seem as complicated as possible, maybe it's just your nature? But the logic paths on our end are quite predictable.

Regarding your nonsense that our customers are more at risk than yours, you've offered no evidence to back that up. Meanwhile we have hundreds of Stinger customers and tens of thousands of JB4 customers over the last decade that would contradict your inflammatory and baseless claim.

I am going to quote my post again, but this time... making it a little more simple for you to follow.

Can you post the ECU similarities, that being the map index's of both vehicles that share the same maps? Or have similar maps?

I feel like I keep asking the same question in this thread, and you either:

A: refuse to answer it
B: insult me for asking you to provide said files (just like this last reply)
C: tell me that anyone can go buy a DAMOS file (yet for some reason you have not done this)

1. Both are direct port injected... so is Ford, Dodge, Nissan, ect. Does that mean they are the same? No, lol.
2. And.. lets look at answer 1 for the MAP vs MAF options. Several manufactures use MAP sensors these days, not MAF... so we just assume that the ECU's and the programming inside of them are the same? Really? I guess, all them are the same then?
3. Hmm, nope... wrong again. I will post maps to prove that the Stinger actually has target boost maps, but... you should know this.
4. Ford, GM, Mercedes, Nissan, ect all do the same thing... does that mean they are the same?
5. Nope... wrong again... I will be posting maps showing that there is not individual cylinder ignition control for the Stinger ECU. Again... how could you be so wrong about the Stinger... maybe is because you are assuming?
6. Nope, wrong again. Boost regulation is based on several different parameters, and throttle is just one of them. I have asked you before and you never answered, so I will ask again. Where in the transfer system does throttle control for boost levels have its priority placed? This will be at least the 5th time I have asked this... and you have yet to answer.
7. That one you might have actually guessed properly.
8. Use EGT and turbine wheel speed for factory constraints? How much more generic could you be in making an assumption of "factory constraints", lol. Every manufacture with a turbo engine uses those for factory constraints, lol. Really? I am sitting here at my keyboard and actually laughed out loud with that comment. Like, this is something that only BMW and KIA use for factory constraints? My god, do you even have the slightest clue how these systems work?

I don't care what is predictable on how the JB4 works, because lets be honest... its no different than any other piggy back that intercepts signals. If you try to tell me different, you are a liar. We are working with signals that that report back to the ECU whats happening, all the piggy backs on the market intercept those signals, and send a false signal to the ECU. That's it, nothing more, nothing less.

Then you have to make assumptions about my nature, or attack my way of dealing with the internet persona that you portray. I am starting to think that you have no idea how this ECU works, what maps are inside of it or how the transfer system functions. Yet... you seem to know exactly how the JB4 deals with the ECU logic's.

Incoming maps to discredit you again

 

[TorkMe]

Here are the boost targets I can share.

These are all target boost levels inside the ECU. I have left a few out because they are single cell limits that I choose not to post, for the fear that those who are watching this thread and trying to map the ECU will copy my hard work. But, these maps... any idiot could find.

 

[Helo58]

The methanol works as a cooling agent for the air, and as a knock preventative measure.

Here is a quote from a very popular engine building website:

"Methanol is a high octane fuel that is also extremely resistant to detonation. It has a tendency to absorb heat out of the air – something known as “latent heat of vaporization.” The water also absorbs heat and provides a further cooling effect as the finely atomized water/methanol mix is pumped into the engine."

If you are "tuning" for methanol, you can get more ignition advance added to the tune, thus increasing power output. The cooler charge, again... cooler air is more dense, thus... you get more air into the combustion chamber, equals more power.

Ethanol, is superior for knock control. Here is another quote from why you want to run ethanol:

"To reap the full power benefits of ethanol based fuels you'll need to increase fuel flow. Despite having a higher octane rating, E85 has a lower overall energy density than pure pump fuel. Pure gasoline contains approximately 125,000 BTUs per gallon, while E85 contains approximately 84,000. This means that a greater volume of E85 must be utilized to realize the same energy content. "

You will have to use more fuel with an E30 blend to reach the same BTU's at gasoline. That increase in fuel will cause more fuel consumption, but the performance benefits come from the ability to add more ignition timing, and the flame propagation of ethanol is a more stable burn cycle.

If you were to combine E30 (ethanol blended fuel) with a methanol injection system... you are getting the benefits of both systems in one tune. Thus... you are creating the perfect situation for optimizing the fuel, ignition, and knock protection from running said fueling solutions.

Essentially, you get to run more ignition advance, at a leaner air fuel ratio without any knock related problems inside the ECU. Add to that, you get a cool and more dense air charge due to the cooling effects of the methanol injection... and you have the perfect mix for making a ton of horsepower and torque.

Hope this helps

Thank you for the explanation, however I think I was looking at where the phrase "power adder" itself came from and what made it a point of contention in the thread. I have long understood the science side of it, but I couldn't understand why what was and wasn't a power adder wasn't agreed upon. From digging around a little bit, I found that sanctioned drag racing rules define "power adders" as a Turbocharger, Supercharger, or Nitrous Oxide. This really explains the back and forth more. If one took the phrase "power adder" literally, it could be anything like a camshaft, intake, decking the block, etc that when utilized the engine made more power. Whereas others in the drag racing community may see a "power adder" as only a supercharger, turbocharger, or nitrous oxide. Seems to boil down to semantics in this case.

 

[TorkMe]

Here are just a few ignition correction tables.

I have exhaust, air, coolant, and mode selection correction tables listed. These are just a few of the 100's of ignition correction tables listed inside the ECU. I have removed the factor offset from a few of the maps, because I do not want to release the data inside the map, and all the map definitions have been hidden because I have not seen any of the maps indexed yet in any of the map packs I have received (yet).

There are 100's of ignition maps that I have seen and mapped inside the ECU, and the only ignition maps that address per cylinder ignition advance and retard are the mega knock maps. But... I have to mention that those maps are very low in the transfer file priority list of corrections. I have those 6 maps mapped as of right now (not going to show them), but... global ignition adjustment is made before individual cylinder adjustment. Individual cylinder adjustment appears to be for mega knock events that have sustained knock windows for more than 5 firing cycles of a 6 cylinders or exceeded 4.3 volts at both knock sensors for more than 720 degrees of crank rotation. For the people reading this, its more or less epic knock events that a global adjustment of 3 + degrees couldn't fix.

 

[Terry@BMS]

Here are just a few ignition correction tables.

Yes all ECU tuning 101. Just like load and lambda target there are mapped components of ignition advance (base ignition, IAT decay, coolant factor) and dynamic components (long term octane adaption, short term per cylinder ignition correction, transmission torque drop request for shift, etc), all of which add up to the final output. There are many factors for each. Same goes for the BMW N54.

Not sure what your point is. It's the job of the tuner to understand the systems he's working with and the possible side effects of any specific change. Which can be minimal or profound depending on the specific change. How we tune these things on the JB4 end is going to be vastly different, and frankly a lot easier, than how you have to handle things on flash side, because of the more limited scope of what we need to change to get the desired response.

There isn't a fixed voltage for knock response BTW, it's also dynamic, per cylinder, based off a table and learned factors for the knock sensor. This is what the tables look like on the N54. The actual constants and table structure for the Stinger are going to be different but the mechanism or way the system works is similar. I can see it operating in the logs. As I've said all along, I'd love to get ignition advance 2-6 logging active in the Stinger JB4 like we have on our other applications. Ign1 provides some insight in to knock response but won't tell us if one cylinder is running hotter than the rest, for example.

You talk a big game on this stuff and I don't doubt you bought a DAMOS and figured out how to change some values around to achieve your desired result. But I do not have confidence you fully understand how each system works and what influence each change you're making may have. I literally never see your customers post or send back data other than that one guy who sends slow speed limited logs with less information than JB4 logs. And from your posts you clearly don't fully understand what we are and are not doing on the JB4 end. So do me a favor and stick to helping your customers with their flash tuning and leave the JB4 analysis to me.

 

[TorkMe]

Terry, you have attacked me personally and referred to my "mental state" in this thread. You have made assumptions about the ECU, that I have undeniably proved false in your assumption. I have asked many times over for you to prove how the Stinger ECU works, and I get those same false assumptions from you about how the BMW ECU is similar to the KIA ECU.

Now, very few will be able to follow what I am posting, and what the map indexes I am showing the community entail. The problem being, I am posting actual facts, mapping from the Stinger ECU... proof that what you are saying is in fact a lie.

Now... this sheds some light on exactly how knowledgeable you are about the Stinger ECU and how you deal with those "logics" inside of it and they may be damaging to the engine (speculative damage). Combine this with that thread over on the BMW forums where you were banned for stealing another tuners files... brings even more evidence forward that you really have no idea what you claim to be doing. If you were so well versed in the BMW ECU... why steal another tuners tune? Do you see how I made that connection to your "experience" being what it is? More or less, if you were so well versed in the BMW ECU... why steal a tune? And if that is how you got your BMW experience, then how well do you really know the KIA Stinger ECU operational parameters, and "logics"?

My personal opinion of you at this point is very poor, and I wish I didn't have to make post like this. It not only makes you look like an ass, but makes me look equally like an ass for pointing it out. I wish we could agree to disagree, but it would appear that you have made a business out of discrediting other tuners buy using the general communities lack of knowledge about tuning to your benefit. I will not let you prey on this community like you have others in the past. Consider me your lie detector from this point forward

To every Stinger owner out there, hopefully you learn to hate me and love me at the same time. I take no shit from liars in the communities I am involved with and it makes for interesting interaction between competing vendors. If I offended anyone, take my apologies as sincere and heart felt, because I am an enthusiast first, and business owner second.

 

[TorkMe]

Yes all ECU tuning 101. Just like load and lambda target there are mapped components of ignition advance (base ignition, IAT decay, coolant factor) and dynamic components (long term octane adaption, short term per cylinder ignition correction, transmission torque drop request for shift, etc), all of which add up to the final output. There are many factors for each. Same goes for the BMW N54.

Not sure what your point is. It's the job of the tuner to understand the systems he's working with and the possible side effects of any specific change. Which can be minimal or profound depending on the specific change. How we tune these things on the JB4 end is going to be vastly different, and frankly a lot easier, than how you have to handle things on flash side, because of the more limited scope of what we need to change to get the desired response.

There isn't a fixed voltage for knock response BTW, it's also dynamic, per cylinder, based off a table and learned factors for the knock sensor. This is what the tables look like on the N54.

View attachment 16623

Oh my god... more BMW stuff. You just don't get it do you? Then you go and edit your reply, good thing I got it quoted before you had a chance to edit it

 

[TorkMe]

Thank you for the explanation, however I think I was looking at where the phrase "power adder" itself came from and what made it a point of contention in the thread. I have long understood the science side of it, but I couldn't understand why what was and wasn't a power adder wasn't agreed upon. From digging around a little bit, I found that sanctioned drag racing rules define "power adders" as a Turbocharger, Supercharger, or Nitrous Oxide. This really explains the back and forth more. If one took the phrase "power adder" literally, it could be anything like a camshaft, intake, decking the block, etc that when utilized the engine made more power. Whereas others in the drag racing community may see a "power adder" as only a supercharger, turbocharger, or nitrous oxide. Seems to boil down to semantics in this case.

I apologize for the wording of power adder, should have put a little more effort into the description and details of what I was getting to.

I feel that there is another 30 to 40 WHP possible with higher octane fuel and methanol injection with our tune. I have done testing up to 24 lbs of boost with an E50 blend of E98 and leaded race fuel, and the HP results were staggering (upwards of 40 WHP gains at 4400 RPM and still climbing). The reason we were not able to full advantage of the higher octane and ethanol blend was due to torque limitation and acceleration limiters inside the ECU. We have since addressed those limits, and we will be coming back with an E30 blend and methanol on the shop car this month to get some additional testing and results posted for you guys.

 

[Terry@BMS]

Oh my god... more BMW stuff. You just don't get it do you? Then you go and edit your reply, good thing I got it quoted before you had a chance to edit it

I think you just don't get it. I understand how modern ECU's work internally and use that knowledge combined with diagnostic data I record on the vehicle while making changes to map out the expected result of specific tuning changes made via the JB4. The fact that the Stinger has 100 tables for something or 101 is really of no consequence to what I do. It's very critical to what you need to do though. Your customers can decide whether they have faith in your ability and temperament to get the job done, and whether they can count on you to help them if things don't go as planned. But our customers can rest assured in our ability to deliver solid JB4 results and provide excellent support as has been proven for over a decade.

PS. I always read my posts after saving and if I leave a typo, forgot to elaborate on something I was thinking while typing, etc, add it in.

 

[Yaro]

No, the point of the post was that the benefit of bolt on modifications like intercooler, downpipes, and midpipes, are not exactly proven yet. As evidence to that I offered that our Stinger with none of those modifications has posted the "worlds fastest" trap speed around here.

We have a Korean vendor with hybrid turbos making ~580whp, with another ~75whp on the table if we can improve the tuning, so I'm quite sure 120mph can be easily eclipsed.

580whp is it running stock block / stock internals ?

 

[brancky3]

Odd, I rarely see top fuel or pro sport compact running the "universal standard" of 60 to 130, LOL

Is it me... or do you use the BMW market at the standard all the time over here in the Stinger page? I have a 800 HP SRT4...

Viper guys are using 60-130: 7 second 60 to 130 with Arrow PCM
Hellcat guys are using 60-130: https://www.hellcat.org/threads/whipple-e85-challenger-heavy-build.164049/page-20#post-3780763
Mclaren guys are using 60-130: https://www.mclarenlife.com/forums/...hear-what-60-130-6-2-seconds-sounds-like.html
Porsche guys are using 60-130: https://www.6speedonline.com/forums...e-60-130-100-150-standing-mile-thread-96.html

Do I need to keep going? You're discounting something because you have no experience with it (just like piggybacks)